Talk:Wine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wine WikiProject
Portal:Wine
 Wine Portal
Wine is part of WikiProject Wine, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of wines, grapes, wine producers and wine growing regions. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page where you can join the project and find other ways of helping.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale within WikiProject Wine.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is a nominee to be the Wine Improvement Drive subject. Please comment on the nomination.
WikiProject Wine open tasks

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Wine:
view • edit • discuss • history • watch
Peer review Wine has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Wine is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Wine as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia.
To-do list: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Add summary section on winemaking
  • Shorten long sections by summarising or splitting them
  • Reduce number of sections to clean up TOC
  • Add more inline citations
  • Add more images


Contents

[edit] External links

I removed external links from the article that I didn't consider appropriate according to WP:EL, and placed a DMOZ link instead, but apparently, what I considered obvious wasn't for others and my edit was partially reverted. So let's open the discussion.

This link was removed: Index of wine-related websites at DMOZ Quote from WP:EL: "Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics." Note: ODP is the same thing as DMOZ.

The following links are present currently, but I think they should be removed. I don't mean that these are obvious linkspam; some of them are actually interesting, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a link farm. More specifically, I think "links to be avoided - #10" applies: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website.

  • Chateau Hajji Firuz - somewhat defendable. But it would be more appropriate as a reference for the history section, if it was used. The description suggests it is one of the zillion wineries in the world.
  • World's Earliest Wine - I don't see why a single image with a description is a relevant link.
  • Depiction of Wine in Persian Miniature - inappropriate file format (MS Office), see #5 on WP:EL.
  • Wine Attraction - History of Wine - this is a commercial site selling wine-related products. Inappropriate.
  • End of the vine - interesting article about the wine industry in Iran, but why is it relevant? We could add 1000s of links to news reports on wine industries all over the world.

Han-Kwang 02:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the trimming down in general, but there are a few things I would prefer to see change. I don't see the need for a dmoz link. I'm not a huge fan of dmoz anyway because it tends to have worse systemic bias than Wikipedia. Sometimes it's very useful, but in this case, the category doesn't seem to be that good - we might as well point to Google. So I would prefer we leave it off and delete the links that shouldn't be here without adding the dmoz link.
I'd keep the upenn.edu site (though I'd change the description - it isn't really about the one winery). It's a dependable and well presented site that has a lot of depth and breadth to information we wouldn't cover in the article even if we got it to featured status. It covers wine in an encyclopedic fashion (i.e. it looks at how wine came in to and impacts our society). It isn't currently a source for the history section so it seems sensible to link to it here.
Given that we don't have a lot of external links I'd keep the Guardian article. I don't think it's the most important link we could see, but it does add a perspective that isn't present in the article (or likely to be well covered). As the article develops I could see this link being deleted as more relevant links become available. -- Siobhan Hansa 04:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The links I restored were (at one point at least) used as references for an earlier version of the article. In retrospect, if the article still includes content sourced from any of these, they should be included in the reference section instead. This article has gone through a lot of revisions, and I think we just missed making proper citations out of these sources.
I believe the need to provide a citation for a source takes precedence over any concerns about the file format.
The vinopolis.co.uk link is entirely bogus and should not be included. I'm fairly confident that in a past life, this web site was more informational and less commercial. In any case, it's not adding anything to the article and should not be included.
The Open Directory Project is something new to me, and at first glance I'm not very fond of the concept. Replacing a few highly relevant links with a link to the universe seems to be a step in the wrong direction. I'm concerned that articles will lose too much value and become less useful to Wikipedia users researching a particular topic. I suppose this is a better discussion for the External Links guide discussion page. Gregmg 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved some links into the reference section and added a phrase about wine in the islam for which this article serves as a reference. I'm fine without an ODP link. Han-Kwang 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

added external link to * the world wines wiki wines database as it seems a compatible wiki endeavor to create a global database of individual wines and people's impressions in an unmoderated forum. --Ecume 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed this link because it doesn't seem to meet the criteria set forth in the External links guide. In essence, external links must add value to this article. Presently your external wine wiki lacks sufficient information to add anything new to this article. With information on just eight white wines and twenty-seven reds, it doesn't provide the Wikipedia user with anything substantial. Please reinsert your link after it has become more established and complete. Gregmg 21:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I would second the removal. It looked like an interesting site but...with very little useful content I lost interest quickly. Look forward to seeing it again when there's more content, but for now it's not ready. -- Kind regards Steve.Moulding 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wine to FA by end of the year?

This is one of the more interesting topics in Wikipedia and it should have an article worthy of FA status. I would like to see a collaboration effort to try and get this article to FA by the end of the year. Any one interested in giving it a go? Agne 07:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts for improvement

  • Content Forks - I think this should be priority #1. The article is quite cumbersome in its current capacity due to the breadth of its subject matter. I think we should treat the wine article like a country article and make productive use of splinter articles and content forks. (FA Examples Canada, India, and Australia). To that extent I think we need to work on some splinter articles based on our current section headings like History of Wine, Wine Production (which should go more into wine making techniques), Classification of Wine (Condense some of the material in the Wine article but keep the material intact in the splinter), Uses of Wine or maybe even more detail in uses and Religious views of Wine and maybe Medical uses of Wine.
  • Better in-line citations.
  • Get rid of some of the list (which ties into better use of content forks as noted above) and get some pretty tables for some of the data.

Those three are the most glaring to me. Any other thoughts? Agne 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I cut and pasted the current history section in this article into the splinter article History of Wine as a first step. Obviously this is just a starting point and some work needs to be done so that each article has a life of its own. From here we need volunteers who are willing to A.) Continue to work on writing and developing the History of Wine article, with particular notice being paid to good, solid referencing. B.) Consolidate and summarize the historical information from the splinter article into 1-2 paragraphs for inclusion into the main wine article with a link to the splinter article. Again we need to focus on good, solid referencing. Agne 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Window of Copyvio?

This page on Beer100 has nearly word for word text. Looking at this page history it seems more likely that Beer100 took it from this page but I'm curiously if anything can confirm that. Agne 07:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It does appear to be a copyright violation. Wikipedia content is free to use, but proper attributions must be made. I'm not sure what the current process is for reporting this. Gregmg 16:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The best place to start is by emailing the site owner, pointing out that Wikipedia content is not public domain and asking that he complies with the terms of the license (easy to understand summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations ) by adding links back to the articles he has copied. My understanding is that most website owners just aren't aware they need to do this and they normally comply when asked. If he refuses you probably want to raise it on the mailing list, I believe the Foundation sometimes applies more pressure on recalcitrant websites. --Siobhan Hansa 17:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Health implications POV

There should be an explicit mention of the negative health affects of wine in this article. I added it and it was removed. Curently the article's health implications are very much POV in favor of pro-drinking and the negative affects are not listed --- Skapur 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for some of these negative health factors? If so, then you are more then welcomed to add mention of these negative factors with those sources. The section links to the main article Alcohol consumption and health which gives a more comprehensive view of the subject and is very NPOV in tone. From all the sources that I am able to come across, wine drinking in moderation is very healthy but anything that is overindulged can produce negative effects. Agne 02:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree about the moderate drinking part. I want to mention the danger of overindulgence. Normally when an article is linked like Alcohol consumption and health this section, it is good practice to give a very summary (at least a couple of sentence) overview of the article. I would be happy with that. I am not saying that the Alcohol consumption and health is a POV article, I just want to give a couple of sentence summary of that article before sending a reader off to that article. The text I want to add (that was reverted) is simply: "Overconsumption of alcohol including wine can cause some diseases including cirrhosis of the liver. Alcoholism can result from a dependency on wine and other alcholic products." --- Skapur 02:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I encourage to you to re-add that section and would certainly support its place in the article but it would be helpful to attach it to a reliable source. Agne 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a source that states that wine consumption in particular causes problems If it's simply alcohol, then Alcohol consumption and health is quite sufficient. Frotz661 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
How can you separate Wine from Alcohol? The link without an introduction to the link is simply not sufficient. I just want to add the two sentences that I have quoted above. Also for links, how about: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/quickstats/general_info.htm , http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4422 , http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol/SC00024 . Also general info at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/alcoholconsumption.html --- Skapur 05:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Alcohol is a component of wine, as are a multitude of other constituent ingredients. Going into detail on over consumption of alcohol in this article makes no more sense than going into detail on the negative effects of a tannin overdose. At present, the medical implications section provides a wiki link to Alcohol consumption and health and it provides the caveat as long as it is consumed in moderation. This seems reasonable and neutral to me. Any further discussion would introduce a point of view and detract from the article. Gregmg 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to completely disagree. The argument about tanins is a made up argument. Other Alcohol based articles do not tout the medical benefits of drinking that type of Alcohol, only the Wine articlee does. The article ONLY talks about the good affects of Wine, not about the bad affects. And there is an overwhelming body of evidence about the dangers of overuse of Alchool (see references quoted by me above) that are not there for tanin. Also, the body of evidence points to asking non-drinkers to not start drinking to get the benefits. As currently written, the article seems to be arguing the opposite and may be advocating non-drinkers to start drinking to gaint the touted benefits. --- Skapur 04:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, I may be wrong, but from what I have read, it is the tanins that provide medical benefits, not the aloohol itself. --- Skapur 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again, is there some substance in wine that apart from alcohol presents an appreciable health risk? If all you're worried about is alcohol, then the article needs no change. Frotz661 07:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


The argument about tanins is a made up argument.
I used tannins for illustrative purposes. An excess of anything may be dangerous.
Other Alcohol based articles do not tout the medical benefits of drinking that type of Alcohol, only the Wine article does.
There are few, if any studies that suggest that other alcoholic beverages have health benefits, but nearly every week another study is released that describes newly discovered benefits from the consumption of wine.
The article ONLY talks about the good affects of Wine, not about the bad affects.
This article is about wine, not alcohol. As previously discussed, the article provides a link to the alcohol consumption article, and it also has the caveat about moderation.
As currently written, the article seems to be arguing the opposite and may be advocating non-drinkers to start drinking to gain the touted benefits.
I don't read it that way, but if you have a reference that includes this specific caveat, why don't you add it to the article. Any modest revisions that are properly referenced and written from a neutral point of view will likely be allowed to remain.
Gregmg 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occam's Razor

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the health benefits of wine are the same as those of grape juice. Can anyone prove that the supposed health benefits are from the alcohol itself? If so, wouldn't beer have the same ones? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Since this is an encyclopedia article, we cannot engage in original research. We can only cite published studies. If you can find a study that indicates grape juice has the same health benefits as wine, then we should include it. I've read that grape juice consumption has some of the same health benefits as wine, but not all. A quick search of Google yields the following page which briefly discusses this. [1] Gregmg 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening sentence

Changed opening sentece and provided a reference. I think this way it looks better.Charleenmerced Talk 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

[edit] Medical implications

Charleenmerced Talk 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

[edit] Some trimming & Splinter articles

I have done some trimming of the large list and tables from this article and moved them to the appropriate splinter articles. They're terrific bits of information but I do think the success of this main article is tied to it being lean and focused. As splinter articles readers will still be able to access the information they want but we will be able to keep this main article concise. AgneCheese/Wine 23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience?

"The higher molecular weight of red wine makes it less volatile and less aromatic then white wines. Being served at room temperature, opens up the vapor molecules and makes the wine more aromatic."

This sounds muddled to me. It seems to need rewriting and/or a reference or two. Anyone? --82.41.42.96 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, need sources and to fic the then to than whitne wines...Charleenmerced Talk 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
Um....it is sourced. Currently ref #20 H. Johnson & J. Robinson The World Atlas of Wine pg 44-45 Mitchell Beazley ISBN 1840003324. AgneCheese/Wine 19:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, well, if that quote appears in the source then it is still nonsensical. How does red wine have a "higher molecular weight" than white? --82.41.42.96 20:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well Hugh Johnson and Jancis Robinson are two very reputable wine sources, however they are not scientists. If you can find a reliable source that contradicts them, then by all means, feel free to include it. AgneCheese/Wine 21:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Preliminary GA self-review

Just a view thoughts on how I would rate this article at this point according to the Good Article Criteria back in my GA reviewing days.
1. It is well written. - Weak pass

  • On par with most GA quality but would need a thorough copy edit vetting before reaching FA "Brilliant prose" quality. The prose has some rough edges, admittedly caused by some of the splinter article trimming, that need to be smooth out.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Weak Needs Improvement

  • In progress. We are still working on providing citations for the areas needed or removing/rewriting text that can not be verified as is. Once we are done then this should be an exceptionally well referenced article.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement
We've trimmed the fat and made use of splinter articles but there are several key areas that we need to beef up.

  • History of New World Wine in the history section. The text that previous was there made scant mention of the New World and what it did mention was a word for word copy vio.
  • A section on Winemaking with a link to the main article and a brief paragraph describing the vine to glass process. We talk a lot of about wine in this article but for the uninformed reader the question that pops up is "Where does it come from?". Currently there are brief mentions and glimpse into the process scatter through out different sections. We need to consolidate those into one part.
  • The "Packaging" section could use a little love and some fleshing out. Nothing more then a paragraph worth but certainly more then what is currently there.
  • At least a stub article to kill off the one red link in the article Garagista

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

  • Maybe a little more effort to be diversify from the US-centric/Old World centric views that hit different sections at different times but overall this is a Neutral article.

5. It is stable - Pass

  • Relative, as we are actively working on improving this article at the moment. But there is no current conflict, revert warring etc.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

  • I think the article does a fine job of illustrating its topic with various pictures.


Overall, I think we're close to a GA but when I would not have passed this article when I was a reviewer. I think once we can tackle some of these concerns, we should submit for GA status and also put in a Peer Review request. We can use this as a stepping stone to eventually get this article up to FA. AgneCheese/Wine 20:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic observations about the etymology

A linguistically minded reader spotted the sentence about the word for wine originally coming from Georgian, "by some accounts". It has been marked as needing citation, but I don't think there will be any citation showing that the word really came from there. It's evident that the word has been in Indo-European, Semitic and South Caucasian languages (Georgian is part of the latter family) for thousands of years, in all of them, and it just isn't possible to establish in which of those families the word originated (or if it originated somewhere else, or if it originated in a mother language of all those families, which is possible but can't be conclusively shown either, at least with the current understanding). Sure, there have probably been some accounts insisting that, for instance, it is specifically the South Caucasian that the word originates in, and those accounts could be referenced in this context. What would probably me more helpful, however, would be to point out that the word for wine is a very old word going back thousands of years in the Indo-European, Semitic and South Caucasian language families. Oghmoir 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not a big fan of the etymology section myself. There is too much gray area in the scholarship and I think its presence in the article is POV magnet. Any other thoughts? AgneCheese/Wine 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I decided to shorten the etymology section. There is plenty of nice information that's on quite a solid footing and I didn't want to get rid of all of it, but I shortened it so I wouldn't be too elaborate for an article about wine, not the etymology of wine. Oghmoir 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Your edits have certainly improved the section. Thank you! AgneCheese/Wine 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vitis muscadinia?

The article references another species of Vitis as a hybridizer: Vitis muscadinia. There is no Wikipedia article for this species, and muscadines are actually Vitis rotundiflora. Does anyone know if this is a real species, or an error? --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack Keller describes Vitis muscadinia as being an incorrect name for Vitis rotundiflora. [2]. I'll make the change. Gregmg 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Health effects" table

The Nutritional Info table is too small, I can barely read it. Does anyone know where the template came from? --mikaul 10:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the usual {{nutritionalvalue}} template - and it looks fine on my computer, same font size as everything around it. --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm using Firefox on a Mac. Just checked and it's the same tiny font with Safari and Explorer, but at least with these two I can read it. I'll check my font aliasing in FF. Thanks for the feedback. mikaul 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barley Wine is not a wine

In the first paragraph I submit that the statement on barley wine is not accurate. Perhaps something like:

While the name is confusing barley wine is not a wine. It is a style of beer and the name comes from it's relatively high alcohol content. 209.195.158.249

The article correctly indicates that Barley wine is a starch based beverage. The term Barley wine is a generally accepted term. The wiki-linked article correctly indicates that Barley wine is an ale. I don't believe there's an issue. Gregmg 23:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No issue, except someone looking for Barley wine might be forgiven for expecting to find it mentioned under "wine". You could set up a disambig link I suppose, but I'd say this mention serves the same purpose and has vague anecdotal value. A propos of this, I think it's worth mentioning Ginger wine. However if you feel there should be a re-think of all this and have a better proposal, feel free to edit. mikaul 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carioprotective vs. Cardioprotective: typo?

In the section Heath effects, resveratrol is said to be carioprotective. Are you sure the author didn't mean cardioprotective? Since wine is mildly acidic, I would expect it to have a negative effect on tooth decay, since enamel slowly dissolves in an acidic environment. Cardioprotective makes more sense. pmoresch, 03/16/2007 17:05(EST).

I suspect you are correct. I've never heard of wine having any sort of dental benefits. The source cited for this requires registration, so I'm not able to double check it. Hopefully someone with access to the referenced study will be able to check on this. Gregmg 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The article abstract indicates that resveratrol acts to decrease platelet adhesion. That's clearly a cardioprotective event; I've changed the article to so indicate. --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 19:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/Talk%7EWine_468a.html"